Bullshit religious people say

[Supafly]

Hi folks, Hi jagger69,

Thanks for taking this thread where you moved it. I see little point in throwing any more ust attacking, not really made in the spirit of clearing any thing up, posts.

I consider myself open for belief, if there is a specific (Or even, multiple) deity that makes me believe in him/her/itself. I do not think this stance, it is agnostic, to be lazy. Just the opposite. I am astonished why people think this would be easier or less work for mind and spirit than going "all in" and believing.

Believing and accepting a set of given rules, maybe even dogmatic stances, are the easy way, in my opinion. I am tempted at tims, to accept a higher power and find comfort in downsizibg my own powers over my life and my decisions. Things would be so much less of a struggle, I believe.

The one higher power I believe in is an all-embracing love. But it has no face, no name, and does not ask for money to pay for his management.

 

[BusterLoads]

By definition, you'd be wrong. 'A' simply meaning 'without', atheism refers to a lack of belief, not a belief in the lack of something.

I consider myself open for belief, if there is a specific (Or even, multiple) deity that makes me believe in him/her/itself. I do not think this stance, it is agnostic, to be lazy. Just the opposite. I am astonished why people think this would be easier or less work for mind and spirit than going "all in" and believing.

Bill Maher brought up both of these points in the video I posted. Sadly, it was unable to play here.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

That said, please don't anyone think that I am anti-atheist. I'm not. [...]

I don't have a feeling you are anti-atheist or disrespectul. It's an honest and fair discussion and that's always welcome. Videos posted here are mainly about people making weard or illogical or dead-wrong statements claiming it's fool-prove and "Gods will". For skeptical atheists this is funny to watch, but it doesn't mean we are disrespectful towards all religious people or are not open for any honest sincere debate.

[...] I would make the argument that atheism is actually a religion since it espouses a definite belief in the non-existence of God [...].

I really think what this discussion has devolved into is a hair-splitting contest but I respectfully disagree with this statement and the oft-repeated claim on behalf of atheists that their position is "not a belief".

It may sound like hair-splitting but it's actually quite important to do. If many people have many different ideas of what atheism means, discussions would go nowhere.
Atheism is nothing more or nothing less than a lack of belief in god(s). Apart from that there's nothing else that defines an atheist. Some atheists have a skeptical approach and would like to see evidence, some are skeptical because they find the religions contradictory. Others go further and say "Gods don't exist" or are agnostic. And so on. But there is nothing really defining them apart from a lack of belief.

It certainly is not a religion. But all that depends on your definition of "religion" or even "faith". If religion means worshipping a supernatural being and believe in an afterlife (that's the general definition of religion), it cannot be a religion. And if you re-define religion to include atheism it would still need to be valid for all religions. It would be incorrect to define religion for christianity, islam etc in one way and religion for atheism in another way and still claim this would be the same definition. But that being said does an atheist worship someone/something? Does he have sermons in some kind of temple or church? Does he follow some kind of scripture? He does not.

 

[Jagger69]

It certainly is not a religion. But all that depends on your definition of "religion" or even "faith".

Exactly my point. Thanks. :clap:

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Exactly my point. Thanks. :clap:

I'm not exactly sure if we are making the same point actually.

What is the definition of religion? What does religion mean you think?

 

[Supafly]

I think that it might help to consider if there is such a thing as "fact" or "truth". I think, at least in this argument, that the base issue is having a conscience. The next step is: Can we judge what is real, true, or above perception? That is where my standpoint is:

The difference between knowledge and belief is probably just gradually. If you believe strong enough, you begin to know. And the judge of the truth are, you yourself.

So, after all, the god you believe in are you yourself, making decisions. I rather cut out the proxy, imaginary gods and especially their middlemen who bend the stories to their agenda.

Thus, I decide on my own agenda and believe in it. If any of you want to believe in me, too, you are very welcome.

 

[Jagger69]

I'm not exactly sure if we are making the same point actually.

What is the definition of religion? What does religion mean you think?

A spiritual belief system. Does not necessarily include any sort of opinion on either the existence or non-existence of a deity but it certainly might. I admit this is very subjective but it only matters what it means to you as an individual.

Would you agree that Buddhism is a religion?

 

[Straight Shooter]

A spiritual belief system. Does not necessarily include any sort of opinion on either the existence or non-existence of a deity but it certainly might. I admit this is very subjective but it only matters what it means to you as an individual.

Would you agree that Buddhism is a religion?

I agree. You could say that Atheism is a religion but I would argue you're using the word "religion" too loosely. Religion can mean anything depending on the person. For example, some people consider football their religion.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

A spiritual belief system. Does not necessarily include any sort of opinion on either the existence or non-existence of a deity but it certainly might. I admit this is very subjective but it only matters what it means to you as an individual.

Would you agree that Buddhism is a religion?

I understand that it only matters what it means to you (or me) as an individual. But what I was trying to say is that if you want to describe atheism as a religion, you would have to come up with a definition for religion that still would be correct as definition for all religions. If you describe religion as a spiritual belief system, how do you see atheism as a spiritual belief system? The thing that might be conflicting is that atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief. And like I said, apart from that the atheist can be whatever. it's not even said that an atheist would search for some spiritual fulfillment (as being part of atheism).

When I look at what wiki says about spirituality:

Spirituality is a process of personal transformation, either in accordance with traditional religious ideals, or, increasingly, oriented on subjective experience and psychological growth independently of any specific religious context. In a more general sense, it may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity or blissful experience. There is no single, widely-agreed definition for the concept.

According to such a definition even aspiring to become a cook can be considered religious. So, it might be to vague.

I respect that you approach this from a personal view and that this is what it means to you, I won't debate that. from my angle i can't agree.

 

[Jagger69]

I understand that it only matters what it means to you (or me) as an individual. But what I was trying to say is that if you want to describe atheism as a religion, you would have to come up with a definition for religion that still would be correct as definition for all religions. If you describe religion as a spiritual belief system, how do you see atheism as a spiritual belief system? The thing that might be conflicting is that atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief. And like I said, apart from that the atheist can be whatever. it's not even said that an atheist would search for some spiritual fulfillment (as being part of atheism).

When I look at what wiki says about spirituality:



According to such a definition even aspiring to become a cook can be considered religious. So, it might be to vague.

I respect that you approach this from a personal view and that this is what it means to you, I won't debate that. from my angle i can't agree.

Fair enough and I am very appreciative of your viewpoint. However, my response would be that, if your definition of Atheism includes the statement that it is "nothing more or less than a lack of belief" then that means a lack of belief in a God or supreme being or whatever you want to call it is then, by deduction, in and of itself a belief. Do you not believe in Atheism if you are an Atheist? Why is this such a big deal to Atheists anyway? Is the fact that they see God and religion so inextricably tied to each other make it impossible to consider the premise that religion can exist without the inclusion of belief in a deity? If so, please answer my question about Buddhism if you would. Is Buddhism a religion....yes or no?

This is fascinating to me by the way so I appreciate the discourse and input from everyone....and the accepting and non-judgmental spirit that is going along with it. Bravo everyone! A thread without name-calling and mud-slinging....imagine that.

And imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try....

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

I understand that it only matters what it means to you (or me) as an individual. But what I was trying to say is that if you want to describe atheism as a religion, you would have to come up with a definition for religion that still would be correct as definition for all religions. If you describe religion as a spiritual belief system, how do you see atheism as a spiritual belief system? The thing that might be conflicting is that atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief. And like I said, apart from that the atheist can be whatever. it's not even said that an atheist would search for some spiritual fulfillment (as being part of atheism).

When I look at what wiki says about spirituality:



According to such a definition even aspiring to become a cook can be considered religious. So, it might be to vague.

I respect that you approach this from a personal view and that this is what it means to you, I won't debate that. from my angle i can't agree.

Of course you can't agree. A lifetime of dogma & brain washing will close any mind to another angle.
Religion training makes you fear other idea structures, and that fear is the basic tool for the control the leaders of religion need for their system to succeed.
Individual spiritual thoughts are personal and great but when it becomes a larger institution people get drunk with power & greedy like any other giant entity and lines are drawn and in the end people die.
Just a sickness.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

[...] However, my response would be that, if your definition of Atheism includes the statement that it is "nothing more or less than a lack of belief" then that means a lack of belief in a God or supreme being or whatever you want to call it is then, by deduction, in and of itself a belief. Do you not believe in Atheism if you are an Atheist? Why is this such a big deal to Atheists anyway? Is the fact that they see God and religion so inextricably tied to each other make it impossible to consider the premise that religion can exist without the inclusion of belief in a deity? If so, please answer my question about Buddhism if you would. Is Buddhism a religion....yes or no?
[...]

It actually isn't a big deal to atheists. It's usually religious who dispute this definition and insist it means something else. Let me try a different approach: atheists don't have a belief. We are just people who do not happen to be theist. For some people it's just that, they have a lack of belief, and this is called "weak atheism". They do not reject the concept of a god, nor do they make any claims. They just don't belief. Others go a step further, the so called "strong atheists". They not only have a lack of belief but also deny the existence of any gods.

Where a christian (for example) accepts the beliefsystem with a supernatural god, an afterlife, scripture talking about Adam and Eve, the ark, etc... because he "accepts Jesus in his hart and starts to believe", some people can be more skeptical and won't take it just on faith alone. After all why should you just belief something because someone tells you to do so. So these people take a look at it and they might see contradictions, logical fallacies, mistakes, they might find the "proof" or "evidence" insufficient, it might be incompatible with the observable reality, whatever reasons there might be, so they don't accept this. Based on what they can observe they reject this beliefsystem. Therefore they are not a theist (christian). They don't have this belief (christianity). By extention an atheist has this towards all kinds of belief.

I assume you are a Christian. Why aren't you for example a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, believe in Thor, Mars, Zeus,... ? I'm going to make a leap of faith here (pun intended) and assume you reject these beliefsystems and gods because they contradict your god. Or you might have other reasons why you do not accept this religions and gods as your own. In other words you don't have this belief: you are an atheist towards these other religions. The only difference is that we don't share the belief of christianity either. And this is the part where you seem to struggle: you can't grasp that atheists don't belief, "they must believe in something".

[...] Do you not believe in Atheism if you are an Atheist? [...]

What is there to believe? Atheism is not a beliefsystem, and it doesn't make any claims. It's a phrase that just describes people who do not share your chrisian belief, or a muslim belief, or all kind of beliefsystems with supernatural claims and gods... But I think there might be also some confusion about the use of the words believe and faith. I might tell a scared kid who has to pass a test: "I believe you can do it, I have faith in you". I might claim "i have faith in science". The use of the words faith and believe here do not express a non-skeptical religious beliefsystem here, but are an expression of trust and logical assumptions or reasoning.

[...] Is the fact that they see God and religion so inextricably tied to each other make it impossible to consider the premise that religion can exist without the inclusion of belief in a deity? If so, please answer my question about Buddhism if you would. Is Buddhism a religion....yes or no? [...]

There is no need to ty God and religion together as you asume, no, although in most cases religion is about a supernatural being or deity. When someone is being skeptical about religion it's not only about whether this deity exists or not, and where you skip all the rest. Most atheist won't deny the concept of a god for example and won't argue that a god can or cannot be proven. When I say "lack of belief" it's not only whether this god exists or not, but about all kind of claims from that religion. In christianity for example the claim about Noah's ark is equally unconvincing to me. But why should I for example be against some of the comandments like "thou shall not murder" or "thou shall not steal"...

Buddhism indeed seems to be a religion without a deity, but also has atheist and philosophical elements. Well, in a way it's not without a god since buddhism doesn't deny the existance of god(s), but his/her/their/it's existance is irrelevant to the personal concept of their religion, and they reject a creator god. There's also the assimilation of other religions in buddhism according to region, and as far as I can remember there's a buddhist sect in India where Buddha is considered a deity. But in this religion for example there is no reason for me to reject the philosophical and spiritual concepts of improving yourself and "believing" in good, being just, etc. However, these deity-like beings that can guide you to higher levels (I'm not an expert, I have no idea what they are called), and the rebirth of the mind in higher or lower beings are things I would object. These are some of the reasons that are what make me an atheist towards buddhism. Even if there is no god. And even if I don't object the philosophical elements of it.

 

[Rattrap]

However, my response would be that, if your definition of Atheism includes the statement that it is "nothing more or less than a lack of belief" then that means a lack of belief in a God or supreme being or whatever you want to call it is then, by deduction, in and of itself a belief.

As others are touching on the religion, splitting hairs and so on, I just want to speak directly to the logic and say this doesn't follow (a lack of belief == belief). To say this is to say that you are 'believing' in this way with regards to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Tolkien's Mordor, Sagan's invisible corporeal garage dragon, Russel's teapot, and so on to actual infinity (anything anyone can imagine, after all). For your premise to be true, we'd be accepting that the premise of a god is the 'default', but the burden of proof always lies with the affirmative (for exactly the same examples as shown above).

Carl Sagan's invisible dragon as described in The Demon-Haunted World illustrates this beautifully, although it's just another take on Russel's teapot.

This is fascinating to me by the way so I appreciate the discourse and input from everyone....and the accepting and non-judgmental spirit that is going along with it. Bravo everyone! A thread without name-calling and mud-slinging....imagine that.

A civil debate about god?! What is this?! It's impossible! It's...a miracle! Therefore proving god's existence! But proof of a god that relies on faith is a contradiction (and so, in Douglas Adams' style, god goes *poof*)...!

:glugglug:

 

[GodsEmbryo]

One of the classics :1orglaugh

 

[Johan]

Now even if you are a straight married couple, religious folks are gonna tell you what to do and what not to do when you're having sex with your wife or your husband, because Jesus Christ did not die on the cross for you to do doggy-style or reverse-cowboy

 

[Jagger69]

It actually isn't a big deal to atheists.

It's not a big deal to me either....at all. If you want to believe that atheism is not a belief, that's OK with me. I'm pretty much done debating this. It's just not that important.

I assume you are a Christian. Why aren't you for example a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, believe in Thor, Mars, Zeus,... ? I'm going to make a leap of faith here (pun intended) and assume you reject these beliefsystems and gods because they contradict your god. Or you might have other reasons why you do not accept this religions and gods as your own. In other words you don't have this belief: you are an atheist towards these other religions. The only difference is that we don't share the belief of christianity either. And this is the part where you seem to struggle: you can't grasp that atheists don't belief, "they must believe in something".

Your assumption couldn't be more inaccurate. I was raised in a Catholic environment and had its dogma shoved down my throat from an early age. I went though the motions of acceptance until I grew old enough to think for myself. I love many of the teachings and examples that Jesus left us with but those have been twisted and perverted beyond recognition over the centuries by men with private agendas. After many years of searching for my own spirituality, I have come to reject all theistic-based religions and Buddhism is the only religion that makes any sense to me.

Buddhism indeed seems to be a religion without a deity, but also has atheist and philosophical elements. Well, in a way it's not without a god since buddhism doesn't deny the existance of god(s), but his/her/their/it's existance is irrelevant to the personal concept of their religion, and they reject a creator god. There's also the assimilation of other religions in buddhism according to region, and as far as I can remember there's a buddhist sect in India where Buddha is considered a deity. But in this religion for example there is no reason for me to reject the philosophical and spiritual concepts of improving yourself and "believing" in good, being just, etc. However, these deity-like beings that can guide you to higher levels (I'm not an expert, I have no idea what they are called), and the rebirth of the mind in higher or lower beings are things I would object. These are some of the reasons that are what make me an atheist towards buddhism. Even if there is no god. And even if I don't object the philosophical elements of it.

OK. If Buddhism is a religion without a deity, that pretty much throws Mr. Maher's (and those who are like-minded) definition of the word "religion" out the window does it not? Also, I think it's a serious stretch to assert that Buddhism is "not without a god" since it doesn't specifically deny the existence of one (or more). It doesn't specifically deny the existence of the Easter Bunny either but that doesn't mean it tacitly admits that their might be one. It simply isn't a factor. And yes, you are correct that there are sects that worship Buddha as a god....there are also sects that believe in a traditional "super-being" deity as well as those who combine aspects of Animism with Buddhism and worship multiple gods. The specific philosophy of the religion says nothing about the existence of a deity and all groups who make theistic claims do so outside the framework of clinical Buddhism. You are also correct that Buddhism believes in an afterlife and a rebirth and, since such beliefs are outside the realm of Atheism as you say, then you would certainly not be a disciple. However, I don't see how not believing in Buddhism makes you "an atheist" of it. As I stated previously, the Greek translation of the word "Atheism" means, literally "without belief in a deity". Since Buddhism has no such deity, how can you be "without belief" in it? Again, more semantics but this one more pertinent than the useless argument as to whether Atheism is a religion.

Good post....thanks for the exchange of thoughts. I'm always looking to learn more about which I do not possess great knowledge.

 

[Jagger69]

Carl Sagan's invisible dragon as described in The Demon-Haunted World illustrates this beautifully, although it's just another take on Russel's teapot

I love Carl Sagan and his philosophies on the subject of the possible existence of God. I am also well aware that he was not an Atheist as is largely believed. I love this quote by him:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

The profundity of this statement cannot be overestimated. Certainly, there are physical laws that seem to be consistent across all aspects of the known universe. Where did these laws emanate from and what force is there that determines these finite given things? This is the great unanswered question that keeps alive, in my view, the possibility that some sort of unknown quantity of unknown origin or nature may exist. Like Sagan, I am unaware of any proof either way, hence my agnosticism and predilection for Buddhism as a spiritual belief system. I would like to go on record as was previously stated by God's Embryo that I am also in concert with many of the tenets of the Christian, Muslim and Semitic faiths (as well as other religions). I see no point in worshiping or praying to them however (and I damn-sure ain't giving them any money!).

 

[BusterLoads]

Now even if you are a straight married couple, religious folks are gonna tell you what to do and what not to do when you're having sex with your wife or your husband, because Jesus Christ did not die on the cross for you to do doggy-style or reverse-cowboy

icardfacepalm:

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Baltimore woman trolls homophobe who accused her of having ‘relentlessly gay’ yard

Instead of retreating, a Baltimore woman is getting revenge on a homophobic neighbor by using their attempt to shame her for her yard as the basis for a successful online fundraiser.

The Baltimore Sun reported that 47-year-old Julie Baker started the campaign after finding a note inside her door criticizing her for the multi-color solar lights on her front yard, which spell out the words “love” and “ohana.” The latter is a Hawaiian expression meaning “family.”

“Your yard is becoming Relentlessly Gay!” the note read. “Myself and Others in the neighborhood ask that you Tone it Down. This is a Christian area and there are Children. Keep it up and I will be forced to call the police on You! Your kind need to have Respect for GOD.”

Baker, who identified herself as bisexual in an interview with Baltimore City Paper, said the lights were not meant as a political statement.

“The point of the rainbows isn’t about being gay,” she said. “It’s because we love rainbows. I have a rainbow tattoo on my arm. We’re going to decorate the white siding of our house with them.”

Rather than be cowed, Baker posted pictures of both the note and the lights online. Screenshots of each, as posted on Reddit, can be seen below:





Baker also opened a page on the crowd-funding site GoFundMe seeking $5,000 she said would be used to make her yard “even More ‘relentlessly gay.'”

“Put simply, I am a widow and the mother of four children, my youngest in high school and I WILL NOT Relent to Hatred,” she wrote. “Instead, I will battle it with whimsy and beauty and laughter and love, wrapped around my home, yard and family!!!”

As of Wednesday night, Baker’s fundraiser had nearly doubled her initial goal, raising $9,357 overall.

Source: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/bal...-accused-her-of-having-relentlessly-gay-yard/
Go Fund Me-page: http://www.gofundme.com/x6dkw9h

Because the garden looked gay...